The Futility of the “United States of Nigeria”: Why We Must Look Beyond the United States of America and the United States of Africa

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Speculation has circulated that the name Nigeria may change to “United States of Nigeria” by the end of December 2026, under the current political dispensation. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PMB) has reportedly denied any intention to submit a draft bill to the National Assembly on this matter. Vie Internationale argues that, should the name change, it would merely be a continuation of existing national problems.

Countries change names for various reasons. In 2022, Turkey renamed itself “Türkiye” to distance itself from the English word “Turkey” and to avoid a joke that likened the country to a chicken. The Republic of Macedonia adopted the name “Republic of North Macedonia” in 2019 to clarify its geopolitical identity and meet European Union accession criteria. Czechia has used the abbreviated name “Czechia” since 2016, and Ivory Coast switched to the French “Côte d’Ivoire” in 2013 to emphasize its French-speaking heritage. Swaziland became the Kingdom of Eswatini in 2018.

Generally, a name change is driven by national interest. For example, Côte d’Ivoire’s French name places it centrally in the United Nations alphabetical list, whereas the English “Ivory Coast” does not. What would motivate a change for Nigeria? Some suggest it could signal sustainable federalism.

Futility of United States of Nigeria

There is no fundamental problem with the idea of Nigeria becoming the “United States of Nigeria,” but the likely aftermath may render the exercise futile. In international law, a “state” is defined by a permanent population, a defined territory, and a government capable of fulfilling international obligations. Recognition by other states is also required for diplomatic relations. These criteria raise questions about sovereignty and authority, especially when a union of population, government, and territory exists without full sovereignty, as with overseas territories of metropolitan countries.

The concept of Westphalian sovereignty distinguishes a sovereign state from a nation-state, the latter defined by cultural affinity, language, and shared history. Africa already had nation-states before colonisation, such as the Ethiopian, Ghanaian, Mali, Songhai, Benin, and Kanem empires.

Marcus Garvey first used the phrase “United States of Africa” in his 1924 poem “Hail, United States of Africa.” At that time, most African territories were colonies, with only Liberia and Ethiopia remaining independent. Garvey envisioned a union of sovereign African states. Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah later promoted a “Union of African States” inspired by the United States of America, advocating a common African government for political and economic unity. The All-African People’s Conference in Accra in 1958 was the first pan‑African conference on African soil, where Nkrumah called for a United States of Africa rather than a union.

In February 2009, Muammar Gaddafi, then Chairman of the African Union, urged member states to pursue a United States of Africa, proposing a single military force, currency, and passport. Despite Gaddafi’s enthusiasm, opposition remained strong, hindering continental integration. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal predicted a United States of Africa by 2017, while the African Union aimed for a “United and Integrated” Africa by 2025, expanding the continent’s scope to include the African diaspora in the Caribbean. Conversely, South African President Jacob Zuma expressed relief at Gaddafi’s death in 2011, citing Gaddafi’s intimidation of African leaders. The death of Gaddafi did not end the quest for a United States of Africa, and internal conflicts in Libya persisted. Zimbabwe’s former President Robert Mugabe also supported the idea, though he died shortly after advocating for it. Ghana, Senegal, and Zimbabwe backed the project, whereas South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria opposed it. Maghrebi countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya showed little interest, preferring pan‑Arabism, Arab nationalism, Berberism, and Islamism.

Gaddafi’s influence and Zuma’s opposition illustrate conflicting views on African unity. In Nigeria, a coup d’état attempt against President Tinubu failed, but the question remains whether a name change would alter the political climate. It is unlikely that renaming Nigeria would resolve underlying animosities.

Insecurity remains a pressing issue. Since President Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure, the Nigerian government has struggled to curb insurgency. The United Arab Emirates supplied information on terrorist financiers to President Buhari’s administration, which claimed to know all funders. Islamic scholar Alhaji Sheikh Gumi has justified armed banditry while claiming to facilitate dialogue with terrorists, stating, “I never met bandits alone.”

Another disturbing case involved Mrs. Grace Ogunleye, Vice Chairman of Ilejemeje Local Government Area in Ekiti, who staged her own kidnapping to raise funds for political and personal obligations. Declared missing after abandoning her vehicle on the Ipere‑Iludun Ekiti Road, police later determined the kidnapping was fabricated. She was arraigned on June 4, 2026, before a Chief Magistrate Court in Ado‑Ekiti. Council Chairman Pius Dada described the fake kidnapping as “embarrassing, unfortunate, and unacceptable.” The incident highlights that changing Nigeria’s name would not address systemic corruption and governance failures.

Beyond United States of America and United States of Africa

The national anthem would be affected by a name change. “Nigeria We Hail Thee” would become “United States of Nigeria, We Hail Thee,” shifting the focus from “Nigeria” to “United States.” The anthem’s original line, “though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand,” would lose its contextual meaning. The term “United States” implies a collection of states, raising questions about Nigeria’s internal unity. The situation suggests a need to move beyond the politics of the United States of America and the United States of Africa.

First, the Nigerian elite’s lifestyle is heavily influenced by European and American norms, both socially and politically. Nigeria has adopted an American‑style presidential system, but true federalism remains unrealised. In 2011, Lagos State Governor Ahmed Tinubu began advocating for genuine federalism, a goal still pursued under the current political system. The Federal Government’s “People’s Bank of Africa and Technology” (PBAT) is attempting to devolve more powers to constituent states, especially in policing.

Second, many African organisations model their governance after European structures. The ECOWAS Treaty, inspired by the 1957 Rome Treaty that established the European Economic Community, and the 1991 Abuja Treaty that established the African Economic Community, reflect this pattern. The Organisation of African Unity used a Secretary‑General and Secretariat, later shifting to a President and Commission, mirroring European changes. This has allowed European influence to persist in Africa.

Third, security partnerships with the United States have yielded tactical successes, such as air strikes against ISIS‑affiliated groups in Nigeria on December 25, 2025, and kinetic strikes on May 17‑18, 2026. General Dagvin Anderson, AFRICOM Commander, praised the collaboration, noting the elimination of several ISIS leaders. However, there is no evidence of technology transfer or capacity building that would enable Nigeria to sustain anti‑ISIS operations independently. The partnership’s benefits appear limited to short‑term tactical gains.

Fourth, corruption pervades Nigerian institutions. Customs, road safety, and internal revenue officials frequently engage in bribery. An anecdote illustrates this: a traveler paid N4.5 million in import duty for a Toyota Highlander but was later stopped by immigration agents who claimed the payment was incomplete. The traveler, who had no involvement in any bribery, was delayed and demanded prosecution. Such incidents demonstrate systemic corruption that a name change cannot rectify.

Fifth, the registration of vehicles is fraught with irregularities. A motorcyclist in April 2026 was asked to pay N22,000 to a private account for registration, without receiving an official receipt or plate number. The practice forces individuals into a corrupt system, undermining nation‑building efforts.

Sixth, road safety enforcement often involves double standards. An electrical engineer was fined for expired tyres after refusing to pay, while the officials’ own vehicle had tyres expired in 2011. The engineer’s attempt to document the discrepancy was met with resistance, illustrating the prevalence of corruption at all levels.

Seventh, the federal government’s housing programmes have been marred by fraud. In 1994, the government advertised houses for construction, but subsequent changes in leadership inflated costs and halted the project. Deposits were collected, but no houses were built, and no refunds were issued. The lack of accountability over 32 years highlights systemic governance failures.

Eighth, the 2004 monetisation policy allowed civil servants to purchase official housing, yet the issuance of certificates of occupancy remains problematic. The Federal Capital Territory Minister has threatened to reclaim ownership of legitimately acquired property for non‑payment of land use fees. The government’s inability to issue certificates of occupancy for over two decades reflects administrative inefficiency.

Ninth, the 2026 Electoral Act’s Section 83(5) bars courts from hearing disputes over internal party matters, ostensibly to prevent frivolous litigation. However, the provision effectively silences internal party misconduct, allowing electoral malpractices to persist unchecked.

In summary, renaming Nigeria to “United States of Nigeria” would not address the entrenched inequalities of protection, dignity, and rule of law that have characterised governance under the Fourth Republic. It would likely reinforce Boko Haram insurgency and separatist agitation. The nation must move beyond copying European and American models and confront the challenges that hinder the creation of a United States of Africa. While the idea of a United States of Nigeria has both merits and demerits, the new name alone cannot resolve national disunity, corruption, conflict, or poverty. National unity must be pursued without coercion, as mandated by the 1999 Constitution, which declares Nigeria indivisible. Any attempt to enforce unity through force would only provoke civil conflict. The concept of a United States of Nigeria, if pursued, must avoid coercive measures and focus on genuine, inclusive governance.